NCAA Committee Meets

The news came via text message.  The FINA Congress had voted to ban non-textile suits and cut back suits’ profiles.  

“That makes our lives a lot easier,” came the reply.

Technical suits will undoubtedly attract the most attention of the NCAA Committee as it meets this week in Indianapolis, but it is far from the only topic on the 23-member committee’s agenda.  Time standards, a potential change in Division II qualifying, co-ed meets, and the definition of bona fide competition will all claim the committee’s attention.

It’s been an especially challenging year for the powerful committee, but one that has appeared to strengthen the group’s communication and resolve according to Committee Chair Tracy Huth.  

“Normally on NCAA sport committees, you have two or three conference calls a year, you go to the championships and you have an annual meeting,” but not this year as Huth explained to the NCAA News.  “I can’t even count the number of conference calls and impromptu meetings we’ve had since the suit issue emerged.”

Communication has been especially challenging considering the changes the committee has undergone.  Division III alone has witnessed the departure of two NCAA liaisons, the early resignation of a committee chair and tragic death of member Steve Brandt.   “A lot of people have made a concerted effort to move collectively in the right direction,” Huth explained.

As the committee meets this week, here is a synopsis of key topics.

Technical Suits
The NCAA has been loathe to institute anything regarding suit standards and has held fast to the belief that the committee should not be in the business of testing or approving playing equipment.  Last year the committee moved to extend a moratorium on the technical suits, but was advised against doing so by the NCAA’s legal counsel.  This spring however, the NCAA gave the committee the green light to consider its own standards and has made its legal staff available to the committee this week.
 
The decision, and puts the NCAA in the unique position of setting a standard for the rest of the world to follow, and by Monday night, the committee had largely made its decisions with regards to fabric, buoyancy, and fasteners.  

“FINA’s decision got the ball rolling,” said one individual close to the issue, “but they [the NCAA] has the ability to set the tone for the rest of the world.”  By all indications, the Committee is considering the most-restrictive definition and if true, could help FINA make hard choices that are certain to alienate some manufacturers.

One manufacturer that has been especially vocal is Speedo.  The swimwear manufacturer is lobbying FINA for a reinstatement of leg suits.  Nearly two-thirds of collegiate coaches approved of the use of leg suits, but Speedo’s argument centers around the time necessary to jammers to market.  Suit availability is major concern of coaches.  In a survey of college coaches, the CSCAA reported that two-thirds of NCAA coaches seek to have any approved technical suits to be made available prior to the start of the 2009-10 season.  A lack of lead-time could leave teams scrambling for suits (or tailors capable of hemming their leg suits) again this season.  Should the committee decide to permit the legs, it could lend support to Speedo’s appeal.

Time Standards and Division II Cap
Going hand-in-hand with suits is the issue of time standards.  Last summer the NCAA unveiled standards that left the college swimming community’s collective jaw agape.   Startling as they were, the standards did little to hold back the tide of fast times, especially those achieved with two suits.  By February, Division I had temporarily expanded its participant cap by sixty-seven swimmers while Division III added forty-two spots.  

Those two Divisions aren’t likely to see changes.  Both use a two-step qualifying process of ‘A’ and ‘B’ standards.  The process leaves swimmers wondering whether they’ve qualified but generally ensures that the NCAA doesn’t exceed its cap on participants.  Division II, however, could be facing big changes.  The committee has been asked to consider instituting a participant cap of 360 athletes beginning with the 2011 championships.

The NCAA is calling on the committee to establish a cap in an effort to help rein in championship costs.  Had such a cap been in place this past season it would have eliminated nearly 150 athletes from the meet.   According to one committee member, the cap would permit one NCAA qualifier for every seven Division II participants.  That’s a ratio far higher than other Division II sports and the other two Divisions.  

Instituting the cap isn’t likely to be popular or easy, but the committee is working to identify a solution that preserves the integrity of the championship while also keeping participation as possible.  “The Division II rules committee will be using the next year to gain information for cap implementation,” explains one committee member who encouraged coaches to offer feedback.  “We need to know how to do it in the best possible manner.”

Bona Fide Competition
The Committee will also be called upon redefine the requirements for bona fide competition.  At present, any meets between NCAA and NAIA or Junior Colleges do not meet the definition of “bona fide” because not all athletes are eligible under NCAA standards.  If interpreted strictly, the definition would prevent NCAA institutions from using times achieved against NAIA schools to qualify for the national championships, and effectively limit NAIA scheduling options.  A broadened that would NAIA, NJCAA or even collegiate club teams, would bolster the viability of such programs.  

Combined Championships
One topic that never seems to die is the prospect of co-ed championships or even a combined NCAA swimming festival involving all three Divisions.  The NCAA has reportedly invited the committee on a tour of the IUPUI Natatorium to show how the storied facility could accommodate such events.  

Among coaches, there is near-universal opposition to the Festival concept.  Of 333 coaches surveyed this spring, just eight percent voiced support of the idea.  Many coaches expressed concern about one Division or gender overshadowing the rest.  Coaches in Division II were especially opposed to the concept.  They saw firsthand how a Festival combining swimming, wrestling and track and field devolved into a Saturday-night drunk fest replete with flying beer bottles, chairs thrown down the Hyatt atrium, and the arrival of dozens of police officers.   

The issue of co-ed meets is not as clear cut with each Division seemingly striving for the status quo.  Division I coaches remain largely resistant to the idea of a combined meet.  Three quarters of coaches surveyed supported a continuation of separate men’s and women’s Division I championships.  They will have that in 2010 with Purdue set to host the women’s championships and Ohio State the men’s.  In Division II, over 80% of coaches expressed a desire to preserve their combined championships, set for Canton, Ohio next March.  

While those two Divisions have their dates and formats set, the Division III committee must still select a site.  Last year Division III’s flirtation with a combined meet became a marriage of necessity when the NCAA was unable to secure bids for separate championships on successive weekends.  Macalester’s Bob Pearson, along with the University of Minnesota Aquatic Director Duane Proell came to the rescue.  Minnesota, which had bid on the 2009-10 Division III meet, agreed to step in a year early and the result was a wildly-successful combined meet.  At the CSCAA Convention in May coaches did express concern about the format of the meet and space considerations.  Whether Minnesota hosts again in 2010 remains to be seen, but Division III appears set for another combined championship.